Rob1Billion expressed his opinion in another thread that the correct economic *ism for the future is neither socialism or communism or capitalism, and that there would be an alternative to all these that were better. I think that's an interesting idea, so I think we should explore the topic of economics a bit here. We'll do it completely without using any -isms, so the words "socialism", "communism", "liberalism", "capitalism" and anything else that ends on ism or is en ideology or a set of ideas is banned completely. It's the ideas and options of economics we should explore, not the dogmas.

I'll start.=======================================

What is economics? Well, it's the science of how to handle scarce resources. Scarce here doesn't mean "unusual" it just means something that we can use up more of than we have. Hence, air is not a scarce resource except in space. *Clean* air is though, as we can pollute it like heck. Water is not a scarce resource in rainy countries, but in deserts they are.

Most resources are scarce, because the human ability to consume is practically limitless. If Diamonds could be picked up by the shovel-loads, then somebody would doubtlessly build a house covered in diamonds. We can always come up with new ideas of using up more resources.

This means that almost everything is scarce. We can always find new ways of using anything that is remotely useful, beautiful or fun.

Humans also have a very unique feature: We can create more resources. Animals will just use the resources available through them in nature, but we will create more and new resources. By tending nature we would make it's fruits more plentiful, which finally led to agriculture. By digging for ore and manipulating it we can create iron, which created better plows which created even more food. And we invent machines, and write books. So humans do not only as animals do consume resources, we also create them. This leads us to our first question: How do we determine which resources should be created?

But since resources are creates or refined by humans working, the next question is obvious and related: How do we determine who should do the work?

But this just givesu s the resources, it doesn't tell us what to do with them So the third and last question is: By which process should resources be distributed?

These are the questions we need to ask us here. How should this look in the future? Can we come up with a system that nobody else have thought of already? Something that isn't an already existing -ism?

Absolutely not a problem. For the moment I will continue a bit on some other basic statements that I believe everybody would agree with. And then we can start speculating and drawing conclusions. I'll give the statements letters to distinguish them from the questions above.

A. Nobody knows your needs better than yourself.

Obviously everybody needs food and shelter, but which kind of food, which kind of shelter? Only you know your needs, only you can decide how to best spend the income you happen to have. Nobody should come and say "you should not eat that food, because it's not biodynamic!" because maybe you rather have cheap food that isn't biodynamic, than expensive that is, because you happen to need the other money to buy a suit, so you can look good for a job interview. *You* need to decide which resources are most important for you. Nobody else can do that.

(The exception here of course being people who can be proven to not take care of themselves, such as mentally handicapped and insane people.)

B. Nobody has the right to force you do to certain work.

Being forced, by using violence or threats of violence, to do certain jobs is slavery. Nobody has the right to do that. If somebody wants a job done, they should find somebody who wants to do it. If nobody wants to do it for free, well, then they need to pay somebody. Payment doesn't have to be monetary, it can be tit for tat, bartering or whatever. As a computer engineer I have several times fixed girls computers because they flirt with me, which is good for the old self-confidence. It's still a form of payment. I did something I wouldn't do otherwise.

In the end this means something related to statement A: Nobody knows better what work you should do than you.

At 9/20/2009 8:52:02 AM, JBlake wrote:Regebro... I thought we were making up a new -ism, not recounting what makes upp capitalism.

No, we haven't gotten to the new isms, yet. I've only stated the three questions that the new ism needs to answer, and some basic economic truths. These things are true no matter what, and has nothing to do with capitalism.

How do we determine which resources should be created?This does seem rather broad and would require us going into each individual rescource to determine whether its manufacture would be worth the effort required.

However, it does seem that a large part of these resources is being created by individuals or companies rather than governments (hunting, farming, etc.) In that case, the people determine which resources will be created are the ones actually creating them. I can only see the government stepping in to stop the creation of some resource that does more harm than good (e.g. stopping Amazon deforestation despite the resource of more farmland.) Other than that, I don't think anyone but the actual creators of these resources should be able to decide what these people ought to do.

How do we determine who should do the work?You do the work, you get paid.You do not get the work, you do not get paid.People willing to do the work should do the work, with money as the incentive. It should never be mandatory. Also, I believe it would be fundamentally unfair to offer some reward, monetary or otherwise, that would only be beneficial to certain groups of people. It isn't outright mandating who does the work and who does not, but it is creating a bias that would change who does the work.

But this just gives us the resources, it doesn't tell us what to do with them So the third and last question is: By which process should resources be distributed?

The owners of the resources distribute them however they see fit. For individuals, it would be to help themselves or their families (or acts of charity); for companies, it would be maximizing profit of its employees; for governments, it would be providing for its citizens in the best way possible.

At 9/20/2009 5:58:07 PM, Nails wrote:How do we determine which resources should be created?This does seem rather broad and would require us going into each individual rescource to determine whether its manufacture would be worth the effort required.

Well, no, that's one possible answer: We (or someone else, somewhere) should do that. It's one process to determine it. But I like that you said "we", because it makes us think if we could do it, and of course we couldn't. No one or no group can sit centrally and decide what resources should be created, it's just too much information to handle and decide. So therefore your second suggested process does indeed seem better.

However, it does seem that a large part of these resources is being created by individuals or companies rather than governments (hunting, farming, etc.) In that case, the people determine which resources will be created are the ones actually creating them. I can only see the government stepping in to stop the creation of some resource that does more harm than good (e.g. stopping Amazon deforestation despite the resource of more farmland.) Other than that, I don't think anyone but the actual creators of these resources should be able to decide what these people ought to do.

Yup, I agree.

How do we determine who should do the work?You do the work, you get paid.You do not get the work, you do not get paid.People willing to do the work should do the work, with money as the incentive. It should never be mandatory.

I agree. Doing something else would be breaking the fundamental rights of A+B above, and would simply amount to slavery.

Also, I believe it would be fundamentally unfair to offer some reward, monetary or otherwise, that would only be beneficial to certain groups of people. It isn't outright mandating who does the work and who does not, but it is creating a bias that would change who does the work.

I'm not sure what you are thinking of here.

But this just gives us the resources, it doesn't tell us what to do with them So the third and last question is: By which process should resources be distributed?

The owners of the resources distribute them however they see fit. For individuals, it would be to help themselves or their families (or acts of charity); for companies, it would be maximizing profit of its employees; for governments, it would be providing for its citizens in the best way possible.

Right. Those who created the resources should have the right to them, or if you got payed to do a job, you have the right to do as you see fit with the salary.

So we here have some tentative answers to our questions:

What resources should be created? Well, those resources somebody sees fit to create. For what reason? Doesn't matter. He may do it because it's fun, or she may do it because they can sell the resource and make money.

Who should make those resources? Whoever wants to. Again either because it's fun or they get payed.

How should the get distributed? They should be distributed as the creator sees fit. He can give them away, barter them or sell them. One common way is to directly give up the created resource for money to the one who owns the place it gets created. This is normally called "having a job". :-) In this case you get a salary instead of what you create, and you can do whatever you want with that salary.

I just created about 15k characters worth of text on notepad to outline a hypothetical non-capital system and saved it last night. I came on this morning to re-read it before posting it and my computer is saying that it never happened. Maybe I was dreaming. At any rate, I am getting way behind in my classes and I have to get back to work. I'll post what I can when I can.

OK false alarm I found what I wrote, it saved to an external hard drive that was plugged in. Here are my ideas on a superior economy:

The free market works with and without capital. Dictionary.com defines capital (in its most relaxed sense) as the accumulation of stock (e.g. wealth). Bill Gates holds much more stock in the United States than I do; therefore he is given an extreme advantage over me, and (if he feels it necessary) can dominate me in an unusually large amount of different ways. We are alright with this, in America of course, because we like to dominate and instead of being aware of this immoral and inefficient aspect of economics we just try to excel in this environment.

One way of escaping this mess is a credit-based system that allots a certain amount of credits for each category of needs. How much each person gets is decided by each person; democratically, anyway. Broad enough categories, to stay out of the way of the free market, would be constructed and then credits would be allotted to that category. 100 credits for food per month, for each person, need not vary with each person. Everyone basically eats about the same amount of food. For those who eat less, they could use their credits efficiently to aid those who eat more. For those who eat lavishly, they can use credits from a different category which would basically be miscellaneous in nature and allow each person to have specialties. In this manner, people could produce goods that would either sell or not sell based on a free market. Bad goods would not sell and popular goods would. My system would most likely lose the efficiency associated with a capital-based system regarding who can produce a product using the cheapest method. I will not deny this. Instead of defending this vulnerable area, I would move you to consider the efficiency we would gain through my system. It is a different, competing type of efficiency.

I work for at&t technical support through a second-party vendor. At&t rents out our services by employing me (at a discounted wage) to take phone calls for them. Because of the capital-based system we operate under, at&t has to buy a certain amount of us to take calls and pay us - whether there are calls to take that day or not. If there are too many calls, we will be in "queue" and customers will wait forever to get helped. If there are not enough, I will work an 8-hour shift and take two calls, spending the rest of the day playing yahtzee and getting yelled at by my supervisor for making her look bad to her supervisor (if he shows up and notices us not working).

Our time is being paid for, so we must be working all the time, even when there is no calls. Our ability to work is very limited if we are not on calls, so we are basically harassed by the cattle-dogs we have for supervisors to sit down, shut up, and try to look busy when we are not on calls. They are paying us, so I have to be there. If at&t weren't paying us to be there, we would be working based on the need for the work instead of the need for us to satisfy our contract. We would only be there when necessary. We would not have this artificial necessity ("we want it because we paid for it" attitude) for us to sit around bored without allowed access to internet, our phones, homework, and hobbies (we are allowed to talk, and that's about it). It is, suffice to say, a cess-pool of inefficiency yet my company is not regarded as "inefficient". Our stock is doing well, we have been around a long time, and we are expanding readily. We will be around for a long time as a successful company despite the wreak of inefficiency around us.

How exactly would a credit-based system help my company? If I were working simply to have a job, things would be much smoother. I would work my allotted hours per week (determined calculating children, studies, volunteer/charity work, and special circumstances/special needs). If I am a single non-student non-parent I would be required to work 40 hours per week. Not 65 hours per week just to put food on the table because I am the proletariat... 40 HOURS PER WEEK MAXIMUM. Any more than this is not recommended and discouraged, so that employers cannot abuse workers and so workers spend ample time where their time would be most efficient: at home, exercising, or reducing their stress-levels so that they can remain healthy and the people around them can remain healthy. It's about time we grew up and realized that when we take care of ourselves we increase efficiency in ways never before imagined.

When there is not enough work to do, workers can be sent home and a log can be kept of the decrease in hours. This can be made up at a later time with extra work for their company, volunteer work, etc.

My system would also get rid of the inefficiency lost when people "write it off". People use their businesses and their taxes as excuses (due completely to a capital-based system) to spend extra on things that they wouldn't otherwise normally buy, because they are essentially paid for already. This is extremely wasteful. There would also be efficiency gained by people not owning incredible amounts of resources. Who wastes more than the rich? $300,000 cars, million-dollar homes, wasted energy on water, electricity... The list goes on. We can still have Ferraris built, but they would be owned by the community instead of an individual. Car enthusiasts can still be car enthusiasts, in fact more people would have access to these great cars than ever before in an incredibly more efficient way.

This is getting long so I will cut it off here and close this thought. Bill Gates runs a huge company, and he should be proud. His accomplishments speak for themselves; and they should speak for themselves without the associated access to resources. His company, representing thousands of individuals, will be responsible for large amounts of resources but Bill Gates himself should not be allowed personal access to them. He will enjoy fringe benefits associated with the company, but the magnitude would be greatly reduced, for the benefit of all society. One of the main points of this system would be people enjoying the vanity of their positions - supervisory, entrepreneurial, artistic, - without the vanity of buying millions of dollars worth of material possessions to complement it. People with low ambition have menial positions and people with high ambitions have prestigious ones - with the vanity that comes with it. All our material possessions are is vanity anyway, so the stuck-up upper class will still be able to exist. They will exist because of their abilities to contribute, however, not their ability to inherit or accumulate material wealth.

At 9/21/2009 9:10:21 AM, Rob1Billion wrote:OK false alarm I found what I wrote, it saved to an external hard drive that was plugged in. Here are my ideas on a superior economy:

The free market works with and without capital.

And already there, you unfortunately kinda failed (but only kinda). Because you are starting from the end result, and that's not what I'm trying to do here. I'm trying to start from basic economic principles and seeing where we end up. That is so much easier than starting from the end, and then trying to unravel all the misconceptions and miscommunications...

instead of being aware of this immoral and inefficient aspect of economics

Can you prove your assumption that capital is immoral and inefficient?

One way of escaping this mess is a credit-based system that allots a certain amount of credits for each category of needs. How much each person gets is decided by each person; democratically, anyway.

Nooo, sorry. You can not let each person decide what he needs democratically. That statement just doesn't make any sense. :)

Everyone basically eats about the same amount of food.

No, they don't and also they don't eat the same type of food or the same quality of food. Some just need food, whatevah, others really enjoy haute cuisine in fancy restaurants.

You are here utterly and completely ignoring the basic fact that each person best knows what he needs and how much of it, and you are simply proposing a centralized planned socialism. It's not new, it's know to not work, and it's known WHY it doesn't work.

To be honest with you, I pretty much invented the system you now have on my way back from the store when I was seven years old, after forgetting the money mom gave me to buy whatever it was she was missing, and I tried to think of a system without money.

On my way back, I realized that some people might want to have more parties than the allocated two parties a year, but on the other hand maybe they didn't want to have a bicycle. That collapsed the system completely.

Your suggestion is not new. It's just an ism: Socialism. It doesn't work, and your whole viewpoint is based on the idea that capital is immoral, which you haven't argued for, and inefficient, something that goes again all economic sciences.

I gotta ask Rob, what is so immoral about "waste"? I explained before that what you consider "waste" is not waste to someone else; you may not find the caterpillar useful, but a child would find it absolutely amazing.

In essence, your system, designed to cut down on "waste" fails to take into account that your idea of waste is different from my idea of waste; to control such a thing on the basis that people can "democratically choose what they need," a statement which makes no sense but I can imagine means that what your needs are is dictated by others because, in a democracy, what you want isn't necessarily what you get if you're not apart of the plurality, to me seems a lot more immoral than your perceived "waste" of resources. People know what they want; the ability to decide should remain in their hands.

I'm going to do my best to defend my unrefined theoretical economic ideas here but again I have a lot of studying to do. We are going to have to do this in very small bits, taking them from my original piece when needed.

"The free market works with or without capital" should be our first premise of dispute.

I believe the free market does not require capital, or stock, in order to function. Theoretically, as long as you have a perfectly competitive marketplace in which people must draw from a limited amount of resources to decide what they would like to consume, the free market will exist. Whether or not people's resources come from stock or from a predetermined and limited supply of "credits" does not alter this point.

As to the supply side of this equation, we may want to address that seperately, if possible.

At 9/21/2009 3:50:36 PM, Rob1Billion wrote:I'm going to do my best to defend my unrefined theoretical economic ideas here but again I have a lot of studying to do. We are going to have to do this in very small bits, taking them from my original piece when needed.

"The free market works with or without capital" should be our first premise of dispute.

I believe the free market does not require capital, or stock, in order to function. Theoretically, as long as you have a perfectly competitive marketplace in which people must draw from a limited amount of resources to decide what they would like to consume, the free market will exist. Whether or not people's resources come from stock or from a predetermined and limited supply of "credits" does not alter this point.

As to the supply side of this equation, we may want to address that seperately, if possible.

Sorry, you are still attacking this from an -ism standpoint. You still have too many assumptions and preconception for that to work in a useful way. I don't want to waste your time in breaking down those assumption, misconceptions and misunderstandings. It's better if you start over without all these ideological baggage and look at economics properly.

We don't need to "determine" which resources should be created. They are currently created by the private sector in a perfectly competitive marketplace, and they should continue to be produced in this fashion. The difference I am proposing is to control the resources that people have to SPEND. Similar to a parent putting a child on an allowance. I know that is quite distasteful to people, especially using that analogy, but look at the alternative: your brother who is bigger and stronger takes all the money and leaves you to starve. We have an extremely lopsided accumulation of wealth that needs to be redistributed more fairly, and if we give people free reign over the resources they will abuse them - every time. It's nice to have the freedom to control the resources but the ruling class has proven that they cannot be trusted with that responsibility; furthermore, they don't deserve the privilige.

If you still aren't satisfied with my answer then I'm not sure what you are looking for...

In essence I agree with Rob1billion. Let's take the best from what both capitalism and socialism has to offer and combine them.

We don't want to live in a depressing reconstruction of a Soviet-bloc state but we must also recognise that the laissez-faire model of capitalism as practiced in the US and the UK was finally discredited last year when it collapsed and the grasping, incompetent investment bankers that caused it had to be rescued by the ordinary taxpayer.

At 9/22/2009 8:44:27 AM, Rob1Billion wrote:How do we determine which resources should be created?

We don't need to "determine" which resources should be created. They are currently created by the private sector in a perfectly competitive marketplace, and they should continue to be produced in this fashion. The difference I am proposing is to control the resources that people have to SPEND.

Which inevitably leads to distorting which resources will be needed-- and provides no incentive for the private sector to adapt to those changes. This model of socialism relies on a complete economic standstill, which can never be concretized in reality.

Similar to a parent putting a child on an allowance. I know that is quite distasteful to people, especially using that analogy, but look at the alternative: your brother who is bigger and stronger takes all the money and leaves you to starve.

That is not the alternative. Markets consist of creating value, not taking it.

We have an extremely lopsided accumulation of wealth

Due to a lopsided creation.

that needs to be redistributed more fairly

Nt possible.

It's nice to have the freedom to control the resources but the ruling class has proven that they cannot be trusted with that responsibility; furthermore, they don't deserve the privilige.

There is no privilege. The productive (who are far from a "ruling class" as proven by the many government programs meant to rob them) created the resources ("Natural" resources are next to useless until someone highly skilled has made an artificial resource out of them). To the extent they aren't permitted to keep them, they will no longer create them. You cannot preserve the competitive marketplace you rely on without a prize for the competitors.

It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.

At 9/22/2009 8:44:27 AM, Rob1Billion wrote:How do we determine which resources should be created?

We don't need to "determine" which resources should be created. They are currently

I thought you wanted to discuss how it *should* be. :)

created by the private sector in a perfectly competitive marketplace, and they should continue to be produced in this fashion.

Indeed, that's the conclusion you reach from my points as well.

The difference I am proposing is to control the resources that people have to SPEND.

Yeah, and you did that by starting with capitalism, not liking it and therefore going over to socialism. Which we know doesn't work, and also is incompatible with the free market capitalism you mentioned in the sentence before.

Sorry. You failed completely at this. You have your preconceptions, and you are not prepared to let go of them to start over from scratch. That makes the whole debate pointless, and I wasted my time.

If you still aren't satisfied with my answer then I'm not sure what you are looking for...

What you said: Something new. Turns out you only have old planned socialism to come with. I'm disappointed.

At 9/22/2009 9:29:22 AM, brian_eggleston wrote:In essence I agree with Rob1billion. Let's take the best from what both capitalism and socialism has to offer and combine them.

We don't want to live in a depressing reconstruction of a Soviet-bloc state but we must also recognise that the laissez-faire model of capitalism as practiced in the US and the UK was finally discredited last year when it collapsed and the grasping, incompetent investment bankers that caused it had to be rescued by the ordinary taxpayer.

OK, great. Maybe then YOU want to start from basic economic and humanitarian principles, like I did, and then continue from that. How do you propose to solve the three questions?

At 9/22/2009 9:29:22 AM, brian_eggleston wrote:In essence I agree with Rob1billion. Let's take the best from what both capitalism and socialism has to offer and combine them.

We don't want to live in a depressing reconstruction of a Soviet-bloc state but we must also recognise that the laissez-faire model of capitalism as practiced in the US and the UK

No such model has ever been practiced by the US and the UK or any other nation.

was finally discredited last year when it collapsed

That was one of the models that purported to "combine the best of capitalism and socialism." You may disagree with the mix, but it was NOT laissez faire, and the sector that collapsed was one of the most heavily regulated sectors in the economy, the type of collapse being entirely predictable from the regulations. It's really rather common for government to cripple the private sector and then claim the private sector has failed as an excuse to take it over :).

and the grasping, incompetent investment bankers that caused it had to be rescued by the ordinary taxpayer.

The grasping, incompetent investment bankers were created because that was precisely what was incentivized by government action-- the government buying stupid loans, insuring stupid loans, in a few cases even mandating stupid loans. If the government had not in effect already made it clear that the bankers were already backed by the full faith and credit of the USFG, the kind of bankers who needed rescued would have collapsed before they ever acquired significant market share.

It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.

the capitalists are starting with some assumptions here, which I would like to point out.

1) any inefficiency in capitalism is a result of LACK of capitalism; any resulting regulations due to capitalisms failures are a result of previous regulations that upset the pure state of capitalism and

2) there are no rich and poor, there are those who create resources and those who do not. Any imbalance of resources is solely due to those who do not create them. We would not have the surplus of resources we enjoy if the rich had not created them.

At 9/22/2009 6:45:13 PM, Rob1Billion wrote:the capitalists are starting with some assumptions here, which I would like to point out.

1) any inefficiency in capitalism is a result of LACK of capitalismany resulting regulations due to capitalisms failures are a result of previous regulations that upset the pure state of capitalism and

This is not an assuption, it is a conclusion.

2) there are no rich and poor, there are those who create resources and those who do not.

Well, obviously to the extent a system is just the statement a capitalist would make is that the creator becomes the rich.

Any imbalance of resources is solely due to those who do not create them.

Where government doesn't involve itself.

We would not have the surplus of resources we enjoy if the rich had not created them.

More or less.

It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.

Regebro my answers are out there for everyone to see. I started out with a huge list of details for my system that you had free-reign to pick apart. You weren't satisfied. I broke it down into my basic assumptions. You weren't satisfied. I re-printed your first question and answered it to the best of my ability. You weren't satisfied. If I'm avoiding your questions at this point it is out of frustration that I cannot figure out just how you want me to answer. I've taken one economics class in my life and I may not understand exactly what you're trying to do... But repeatedly telling me that I am wasting your time is not going to provide the synthesis you ask for.

How do we determine which resources should be created?

The free market. My system does not replace the free market, unless you can show that it does.

How do we determine who should do the work?

The free market. Again, my system only replaces the funds people have to earn and spend. People would find jobs in the same exact manner they do today. They wouldn't be burdoned by unfair wages for their jobs under my system.

By which process should resources be distributed?This is the spot where we have some debating to do. But if I'm "missing the point" in the first two questions, I don't want to move here yet because I would like to do this in small chunks.

At 9/23/2009 8:04:22 AM, Rob1Billion wrote:How do we determine which resources should be created?

The free market. My system does not replace the free market, unless you can show that it does.

How do we determine who should do the work?

The free market.

OK, so we have a free market for buying and selling products, and also a free market for work so far in your system.

Again, my system only replaces the funds people have to earn and spend

Soo.... people would be free to take any job for any salary they want, but then the state will take all the salary!?!

Ehhh... That's not a free market workplace in any interpretation of the word. I think you need to clarify this. For the time being I'll assume you actually want a free market.

People would find jobs in the same exact manner they do today. They wouldn't be burdoned by unfair wages for their jobs under my system.

Define what a "fair" wage is. Who determines what is fair? The worker? The employee? The worker and the employee together? Politicians? Karl Marx? God?

By which process should resources be distributed?This is the spot where we have some debating to do. But if I'm "missing the point" in the first two questions, I don't want to move here yet because I would like to do this in small chunks.

Well, you want to have a free market for buying and selling the products. You also want to have a free market for work. That means that the amount of income anybody has is determined by the free market, and also the price for resources are determined by the free market.

Since the distribution of resources will depend of price and income, you have said that the distribution of resources will depend on these two free markets. So you want a free market here, apparently.

Notice that you ended up in two completely different places when you started from the start and when you started from the end.

I will answer two problems with my system in this post:1) what is motivating a person to work, and motivating them to do a particular kind of work?

2) If people had "credits" to draw from, which were pre-determined by the government, then this raises the question of how businesses would employ them and factor their wages into a competitive scheme. How do we keep the market competitive if businesses can't decide to pay someone a certain amount (haggle over wage to reach a compromise)?

A1) People would be required to work a certain amount of hours per week. They must go through normal hiring processes by companies, who can choose whether or not to hire them. Workers would choose what job they would like based on how enjoyable the work is; if they are slackers they will only get hired by crappy jobs, and if they work hard and do well then they move up in the ranks to more enjoyable/prestigious jobs.

As far as entrepreneurial endeavors, it's not too hard to imagine a system could be put into place where you build credit (much like you do now) to get assistance to start a small business.

A2) The businesses would have to pay for their workers directly to the government. Everyone is a public worker now. Businesses who pay higher labor must be offered incentives to keep the market competitive. Businesses could hypothetically choose "zero" for labor costs, or could pay workers $100/hour. So why would a McDonalds pay a low wage and a technical position pay a high wage? The answer is loans. "High contributors" and "low-contributors" will have a neo-credit score associated with how much wage they pay their workers. Now the details will be pretty complex (not more than current economics, though) but there would most likely be a "starter" loan associated with starting a small business. If businesses do well and pay their workers high amounts (which would be paid to the government) their neo-credit score will increase and they will become eligible for loans (or grants) that will put them in the position to expand. This will also negate the necessity of banks (a sign of efficiency for my system). What's the purpose of going through the trouble to make sure the bureaucracy is backing your bank (FDIC) when your bank is the government? Savings and loans will all be handled by the government and you will be 100% backed as long as the US exists.

There would also be the PR of being reported as a "low contributor" or a "high contributor", and if you think this is weak then I would ask you why companies spend money on charities to get their names out there - this is obviously an effective marketing technique. If companies are reported as "high contributors" to wage, there could be all types of perks associated with it, including prestige (vanity) of the patrons of their products. Customers would enjoy the vanity of being able to say that they patronize highly contributing organizations.

At 9/23/2009 9:25:20 PM, Rob1Billion wrote:I will answer two problems with my system in this post:1) what is motivating a person to work, and motivating them to do a particular kind of work?

2) If people had "credits" to draw from, which were pre-determined by the government, then this raises the question of how businesses would employ them and factor their wages into a competitive scheme. How do we keep the market competitive if businesses can't decide to pay someone a certain amount (haggle over wage to reach a compromise)?

A1) People would be required to work a certain amount of hours per week.

So a GUN is motivating them to work.That's kind of an obsolete model. It worked for thousands of years-- but not very well. Also, destroys all incentive to work longer-houred jobs.

Workers would choose what job they would like based on how enjoyable the work is; if they are slackers they will only get hired by crappy jobs, and if they work hard and do well then they move up in the ranks to more enjoyable/prestigious jobs.

So there is no incentive to do unenjoyable but highly skilled jobs.

A2) The businesses would have to pay for their workers directly to the government. Everyone is a public worker now. Businesses who pay higher labor must be offered incentives to keep the market competitive. Businesses could hypothetically choose "zero" for labor costs, or could pay workers $100/hour. So why would a McDonalds pay a low wage and a technical position pay a high wage? The answer is loans. "High contributors" and "low-contributors" will have a neo-credit score associated with how much wage they pay their workers. Now the details will be pretty complex (not more than current economics, though) but there would most likely be a "starter" loan associated with starting a small business. If businesses do well and pay their workers high amounts (which would be paid to the government) their neo-credit score will increase and they will become eligible for loans (or grants) that will put them in the position to expand. This will also negate the necessity of banks (a sign of efficiency for my system).

This whole idea of currency is just insane. Currency paid by the government for paying the currency back to the government is not a competitive system in any sense of the word. What's to compete over? Who can hand it back fastest? How does this "competition" have anything to do with the purpose of business? Incentivizing "the paying of higher wages" is essentially irrelevant to economics when the wages are a zero based upon a zero. At least the current currency represents SOMETHING, albeit something immoral (specifically, it represents a "get out of jail free card," because anyone who doesn't show sufficient amounts of it to the government on tax day relative to their physical assets will be imprisoned), and so acquires value in rough proportion to how much of it is needed to get out of jail. Where's the utility in possessing this currency of yours? If it the government hands it out, and scores the business based on how much gets handed back, it all gets handed back, and the government is just picking the winner, unless there is someone who needs to keep it (who and why?)

What's the purpose of going through the trouble to make sure the bureaucracy is backing your bank (FDIC) when your bank is the government? Savings and loans will all be handled by the government and you will be 100% backed as long as the US exists.

If you think having to make sure the bureaucrats back the bank that backs you is a problem, why wouldn't it be a problem to have them back you directly? Why is it superior to taking the bureucrats out of the picture and leaving the bank to whoever does the best job at banking?

There would also be the PR of being reported as a "low contributor" or a "high contributor", and if you think this is weak then I would ask you why companies spend money on charities to get their names out there

They spend rather small amounts of money on that, and even then it's of disputed effectiveness. Certainly nothing near what they pay in wages, and you propose they pay equivalent amounts to wages for this "government charity."

It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.